New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add Documentation of the AppVeyor build process for NVDA forks #16293
Conversation
dc3f3e7
to
3d7930d
Compare
…v/buildingNVDAOnAppveyor.md (nvaccess#16293, followup of nvaccess#16221)
See test results for failed build of commit 845802bcb7 |
e37fb1a
to
a900fda
Compare
…v/buildingNVDAOnAppveyor.md (nvaccess#16293, followup of nvaccess#16221)
CC @Qchristensen |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
generally looks good. I would suggest changing Appveyor
to AppVeyor
across this diff
*(FixMe: more instructions may be needed here.)* | ||
4. Move to the "Select repository for your new project" heading, and then to the heading representing your GitHub username. | ||
5. Below that heading, you should find your GitHub repositories listed. Go to the one representing your NVDA fork. | ||
6. This part is less than perfectly accessible via the usual methods: you will need to use NVDA+numpad divide, to route the mouse to the repository name, and then numpad divide to click on it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
6. This part is less than perfectly accessible via the usual methods: you will need to use NVDA+numpad divide, to route the mouse to the repository name, and then numpad divide to click on it. | |
6. This part is less than perfectly accessible via the usual methods: you will need to use `NVDA+numpad` divide, to route the mouse to the repository name, and then `numpadDivide` to click on it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
"Divide" falls outside of the backticks in your suggestion. I have modified the spacing and casing to reach your intended outcome.
6. This part is less than perfectly accessible via the usual methods: you will need to use NVDA+numpad divide, to route the mouse to the repository name, and then numpad divide to click on it. | |
6. This part is less than perfectly accessible via the usual methods: you will need to use `NVDA+NumpadDivide`, to route the mouse to the repository name, and then `NumpadDivide` to click on it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Key commands should be written in lowerCamelCase
https://github.com/nvaccess/nvda/blob/master/projectDocs/dev/userGuideStandards.md#general-standards
The casing should be numpadDivide
…v/buildingNVDAOnAppVeyor.md (nvaccess#16293, followup of nvaccess#16221)
68fdf7c
to
6b739ed
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Just for future reference, it would have been better to keep the original commit. Commit messages don't matter much, and as it was a force push the PR has to be re-reviewed from scratch, rather than from the previous review |
Just for future reference, it would have been better to keep the original commit. Commit messages don't matter much, and as it was a force push the PR has
to be re-reviewed from scratch, rather than from the previous review
Sorry.
|
@seanbudd Fixed your last comment. Nothing left that I know of.
|
Link to issue number:
Follow-up of #16221
Summary of the issue:
The streamlined AppVeyor build process implemented in #16221, requires documentation in order to be useful.
Description of user facing changes
None.
Description of development approach
projectDocs/dev/buildingNVDAOnAppVeyor.md
.readme.md
andcontributing.md
, at @seanbudd's suggestion.buildingNVDA.md
.Testing strategy:
Checked all links to be working as of now.
Tested all commands.
I've been using variations of this process for three years.
Known issues with pull request:
None.
Code Review Checklist: